European officials say that negotiations on the ceasefire have progressed “significantly,” though there is as yet no sign that the pro-Saudi forces are willing to consider a ceasefire. Previous ceasefires have been short-lived, with the Hadi government condemning any effort at a power-sharing deal.

Iran’s value in his effort is unclear. They have limited ties with the Shi’ite Houthi movement, but the Houthis have long embraced peace talks to begin with, and would seemingly be trivial to get to the negotiating table anyhow.

Rather, the suggestion is that the three European nations are trying to blunt US allegations against Iran by showing that they can be brought into positive regional endeavors. The US has embraced Saudi allegations that Iran is “destabilizing” Yemen, though these claims are broadly just the Saudis trying to retroactively justify how poorly their invasion of Yemen has gone.

If you want to do an analogy, do a real analogy. It would look something like this:

“I wonder how Iran would react if it had invaded, blockaded, and massacred civilians in Yemen for the purpose of reinstalling an overthrown Iranian puppet president, and instead of just saying uncle, the Yemenis got some missiles, maybe from the Saudis, and responded to the Iranian invasion by targeting Iran?”

It hasn’t been centuries since Iran openly invaded another country, it’s been about 40 years (in the mid-1970s, they invaded Iraq and kept a substantial force there for a year and a half to suppress cross-border Kurdish activity).

The regime also throws its military weight around in Lebanon and Syria through the proxy activities of Hezbollah, and backs Shiite political and military factions in Iraq. It clearly is, and intends to continue to be, a regional power player.

But let’s not pretend that the Iranians are to blame for the Saudis getting their teat in a wringer in Yemen.

I agree with almost all of that Tom,
my question isn’t posed to single out one or the other,
they (Saudi and Iran) are both reprehensible for their continuous religious
warfare. The region remains in turmoil mainly because of their centuries old animus.

However it’s a pretty good bet the Houthi’s are getting missiles to lob at Riyadh from— Iran. So a Saudi invasion, is quite predictable.

PS: unlike some commenters here, I don’t wear rose-colored glasses concerning either Iran or the Saudis.

Why should I? You think they should have nukes, you think they should be able to keep land gained in war and you think they should be able to use archaic rules of engagement and fire live ammunition into crowds. You’ve defended them at every turn and then pretend to be a neutral observer.

Israelis live in a homicidal, Muslim, neighborhood, they NEED nukes to keep the barbarians off of them.

You start a war, you lose land, tough-shiite.

The Gazans sent women and children against the wall first, knowing the Israelis would not shoot them then their ‘fighters”, hiding behind that shield attempted to breach the wall to kill. That’s when live fire occurred and why they ADMITTED over 50 of the fallen were “fighters”.

They were warned what would happen, the whole insane mess was on them.

Bulls**t. You honestly believe Iran doesn’t attack Israel because Israel has nukes? Or Syria? Hezbollah? The superpower that blindly supports their every move(like you)is the only reason needed. Plus they have all the high tech conventional toys that we keep them supplied with that dwarfs anything their perceived enemies have.

The Geneva convention says otherwise. More proof that you back Israel over international law.

Ah! the story has now changed. Israel showed constraint while miraculously taking no casualties from the “admitted” 50 fallen “fighters”. Geez, what kind of fighters can’t even muster one f**king casualty?

Yes, they were warned that the brutal IDF would shoot them in cold blood and they did. Bravo. Now tell me again how you don’t back Israel at every turn.

I do believe the Muslim nations fear Israeli nukes, as they should.
The Arab countries are “disproportionally” (lol) more numerous than Israel, so they need an equalizer.

The US has not intervened on Israel’s side in Syria,
they are doing quite well on their own.

It is in the US’s national interest to have a counter weight to homicidal, Muslim nations in the region, hence we sell them arms.

What specifically are you referring to re. the “Geneva convention”?

The story remains the same, Gazans can’t do much more than “protest”,
that is all they are indoctrinated to do. They don’t care to build their society, so they endlessly pull on the heart-strings of the gullible.

The Hamas fighters were armed, THEY crossed the line. The folks in the West Bank didn’t and look, no carnage. Your excuses for their full-on assault is ridiculous.

The world should fear Israel’s nukes. Samson option ring a bell? Not the point though. Israel’s conventional warfare is leaps and bounds ahead of its regional rivals and they have the backing of the world’s lone superpower. My god, we won’t even allow an investigation into the Gaza massacre. Why would Israel fear its weak neighbors?

The US wouldn’t be in Syria if it wasn’t for Israel. How is Syria a threat to us? And if the US needs a counter weight to “homicidal Muslim” nations then why do we sell them arms too? But of course we do keep Israel dominant, weapons wise.

The 4th Geneva convention. It prohibits countries from moving population occupied in a war. You know, what Israel has done and continues to do.

And yet NOT ONE ISRAELI CASUALTY. What were they armed with, pea shooters?

It’s not deflection. You’re basing Syria not being on the panel for reasons that the US, who if I had to guess is on that panel, has been far more guilty over the years. But no, I don’t think Syria should be on any such panel but you still sound like Nikki, Bolton and Bibi with your other Israel first rhetoric.

The Gaza Palestinians (40K of them)
were not charging the border barrier against Israel?
Armed with rocks, Molotov cocktails, fire bombing kites and in some cases small fire arms?
My eyes must have deceived me.

We agree again, it’s the old divide between Shia and Sunni again, Muslims!
I’m just saying, shooting rockets at the capital of Saud is no way going to augur for peace, it’s an invitation for “total war”.

“He [Esau] will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” —- Genesis 16:12

The 5,000 year long conflict in the Middle East is not just between Jew and Arab. It is also (and, probably, primarily) between Arab and Arab. Will things suddenly get better in 2018? Sure, there have been periods of peace. But, it never lasts. Because Esau is a wild ass of a man. That’s not God talk. That’s history talk.

No, you avoid, consistently, what I said,
the Yemeni religious factions have been hacking on each other since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, nothing new,
this is just the latest edition.
It’s what they do!

Yes, they did, however it was in response to Houthi (Iranian) strength gaining in Yemen.
That Saudi intervention, was no better or worse than Iranian backing for the Houthis.
North and South Yemen have been at it for decades.
But the overriding BASIS for the endless conflict is their satanic religion.

So, to recap,
Saudi’s invade to prevent a Houthi takeover (backed by IRAN);
Iranians supply the Houthis with missiles, who then attack Riyadh;
and now the Saudis are determined to take the prize port city,
which will cause a humanitarian nightmare.
The “religion of peace” that you expect the Israelis to trust, sure.

After it was found the Iranians COULDN’T talk the Houthis out of taking over Yemen, what?
The Iranians said oh-well, and gave them missiles to lob at the Saudis??? Try making sense next time.

The full-on assault that is NOW underway was provoked by those missiles, up until that point it was just another everyday, low grade, proxy war between Shias and Sunnis trying to exterminate each other,
just another day at the office in the ME.

I never mentioned a border skirmish. I mentioned the Iranian invasion of Iraq. They kept an infantry battalion well inside Iraq for a year and a half prior to the Algiers Accord. The Iranians also seized four previously Iraqi-held islands in the Persian Gulf during that time period.

My point is not that Iran is especially belligerent by comparison to other countries. They aren’t. But this idea that they’re a bunch of peacenik flower children is a bunch of bullshit.

You said they did it to “suppress cross border Kurdish activity” so a “border skirmish” seemed appropriate. I think when people talk about Iran not invading any other country for centuries they are talking about the more conventional types like we’re so used to with our own country. Amassing air forces, navies and ground troops and then pummeling the shit out of someone.

I don’t think Iran is innocent. They just happen to be the one we’re trying to start a war with so the propaganda machine is trying to make them out to be something they aren’t.